Theme: Governance

(FB Timestamp) PROPERTARIAN GOVERNMENT LIBERTY, RULE OF LAW, AND THE OPTIONS FOR GOVERNANCE: PRODUCTION OF COMMONS [L]iberty as far as I know refers to the condition produced by rule of law rather than rule by man. The principal problem with rule of law has been the means of decidability as to the scope of the law. This is why libertarianism failed – it does not define the scope of the law objectively and empirically rather than subjectively and preferentially. In the west this refers to reciprocity both between members, between members and the government, and between governments(international). However, commons must be produced since it is by commons the west outpaced (rapidly) the rest, in the bronze, iron and finally steel ages. We invented the corporation precisely because we have been practicing it for thousands of years – particularly since 700ad under bipartite manorialism (the agrarian corporation). Once the question of the limit of law is defined as reciprocity, the only question then refers to who and how the polity decides to choose which commons to produce that is in the interest of everyone in the hierarchy. A judge of last resort can choose the commons (monarchy). The monarch can choose the commons and then have another ‘house’ approve or not the appropriation of funds. Or a house can choose the commons and the people approve the appropriations, and the monarch (judge of last resort) hold veto. Or the people can choose the commons and then approve the appropriations for those commons, with a house, monarch, or judiciary veto those commons and appropriations. History appears to suggest that monarchs that must obtain permission from industry and the public in order to appropriate the necessary funds, produces the superior set of outcomes. And this is the lesson of the 20th century, and the reason for the systemic failure of democracy – even in the west. Not that we needed to repeat the lesson since it has been known since the ancient era, that democracy was the worst of all possible options. But because democracy coincided with the returns on the second industrial revolution (germany), from which our 20th century wealth arose, the state, academy, media complex has claimed this was due to democracy rather than democracy has brought that wealth to an end through redistribution of reproduction, destroying what that industrial revolution depended upon: the ‘white’ laboring, working, and middle classes – which are the only high trust such classes in the world outside of japan and korea. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine

(FB Timestamp) PROPERTARIAN GOVERNMENT LIBERTY, RULE OF LAW, AND THE OPTIONS FOR GOVERNANCE: PRODUCTION OF COMMONS [L]iberty as far as I know refers to the condition produced by rule of law rather than rule by man. The principal problem with rule of law has been the means of decidability as to the scope of the law. This is why libertarianism failed – it does not define the scope of the law objectively and empirically rather than subjectively and preferentially. In the west this refers to reciprocity both between members, between members and the government, and between governments(international). However, commons must be produced since it is by commons the west outpaced (rapidly) the rest, in the bronze, iron and finally steel ages. We invented the corporation precisely because we have been practicing it for thousands of years – particularly since 700ad under bipartite manorialism (the agrarian corporation). Once the question of the limit of law is defined as reciprocity, the only question then refers to who and how the polity decides to choose which commons to produce that is in the interest of everyone in the hierarchy. A judge of last resort can choose the commons (monarchy). The monarch can choose the commons and then have another ‘house’ approve or not the appropriation of funds. Or a house can choose the commons and the people approve the appropriations, and the monarch (judge of last resort) hold veto. Or the people can choose the commons and then approve the appropriations for those commons, with a house, monarch, or judiciary veto those commons and appropriations. History appears to suggest that monarchs that must obtain permission from industry and the public in order to appropriate the necessary funds, produces the superior set of outcomes. And this is the lesson of the 20th century, and the reason for the systemic failure of democracy – even in the west. Not that we needed to repeat the lesson since it has been known since the ancient era, that democracy was the worst of all possible options. But because democracy coincided with the returns on the second industrial revolution (germany), from which our 20th century wealth arose, the state, academy, media complex has claimed this was due to democracy rather than democracy has brought that wealth to an end through redistribution of reproduction, destroying what that industrial revolution depended upon: the ‘white’ laboring, working, and middle classes – which are the only high trust such classes in the world outside of japan and korea. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine